Author
Topic: Has Webster Tarpley been "bought"? (Read 11600 times)

Webster, in light of your consistent refusal to apply to Hillary Clinton even a fraction of the scathing scrutiny and armchair psychoanalysis that you routinely apply to Trump, I think it's reasonable to say at this point that -- if you're trying to convince your anti-war/anti-police state/anti-Wall Street listeners that you've been "bought" by the plutocrats and robber barons pulling Hillary's strings -- you're doing an excellent job.

All US presidential cycles are money controlled corrupted processes with no legitimacy whatever. Voters have no say despite believing otherwise.

They naively think electing new bums replacing old ones improves things. Their choices are among an array of long ago bought and paid for candidates supporting what most harms them.

The late Gore Vidal said “(b)y the time a (candidate) gets to be presidential material, (he or she has) been bought ten times over.”

“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party (with) two right wings: Republican and Democrat,” he explained.

Hillary Clinton perhaps represents the worst choice among an array of aspirants looking more like a police lineup. Previous articles explained her warmongering lust for endless conflicts. She’s unabashedly hawkish.

As first lady, she urged husband Bill to bomb Belgrade. Yugoslavia’s rape and pillage followed. As a New York senator, she supported Bush’s war on Afghanistan. As Secretary of State, she urged escalating it.

She backed lawless aggression on Iraq based entirely on Big Lies. Her supportive Senate remarks included baseless fabrications about Saddam “continu(ing) to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and (efforts) to keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” She got the war she wanted.

She backed military intervention to topple Libya’s Gaddafi. She urged more extensive drone bombings. She promoted war to oust Syria’s Assad.

She favors nuclear weapons use. She calls them peacekeeping deterrents. She wants US-dominated NATO used more aggressively.

She’s hostile to Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and other independent countries.

She urges more heavily arming Kiev fascists than already for continued war on Donbass freedom fighters wanting democratic governance everyone deserves.

As first lady, New York senator and Secretary of State, she’s been ideologically hardline – pro-war, pro-business, anti-populist, anti-labor.

As presidential aspirant, she’s selling a different image. Whether enough people buy it to get her nominated and elected remains to be seen. It’s a long time to November 2016. A lot can happen between now and then to derail her outsized ambitions.

On June 13, she launched her campaign in New York – at Roosevelt Island’s Four Freedoms Park, wrapping her candidacy in FDR’s New Deal.

As first lady, she supported so-called welfare reform signed into law by husband Bill – gutting social safety net protection for families with dependent children established in the 1930s.

Her rhetoric belies her hardline agenda – the same one duopoly power in Washington espoused for decades, notably post-9/11.

Days earlier at the New School for Social Research in New York, she sounded more Republican than self-styled populist saying:

“I want to be the small business president, and I mean it. And throughout this campaign I’m going to be talking about how we empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax relief and simplification.”

Like Washington’s bipartisan criminal class, she favors stimulating economic growth by corporate tax cuts and other business friendly measures.

She has no program to address mass unemployment, underemployment or reduce poverty. Nothing to stop continued offshoring of US jobs to low-wage countries. Nothing to help ordinary Americans most in need.

Monied interests can feel safe in her hands – her underlying message despite its pseudo-populist rhetoric. As president, socialism for the rich and powerful contrasted with neoliberal harshness for most others will be the centerpiece of her agenda – along with continued endless war of aggression for wealth and dominance.

She shamelessly calls corporate tax cuts, credits and other handouts “the best anti-poverty program” – creating the illusion they stimulate jobs creation. They don’t. They’re used for self-serving interests.

Clinton exclusively supports Wall Street, war profiteers and other corporate favorites at the expense of serving everyone equitably and fairly – wrapped in disingenuous pseudo-populist rhetoric, pure demagoguery masking her business as usual agenda.

Hillary Clinton: Destroy Syria for Israel: “The Best Way to Help Israel”

By The New ObserverGlobal Research, March 22, 2016The New Observer 20 March 2016

A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.”

In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death.

In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government.

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.

The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

Almost 2 years ago, August 8, 2014, Obama launched a bombing campaign against Syria and Iraq, in defiance of international law.

The US Air Force with the support of a coalition of 19 countries has relentlessly waged an intensified air campaign against Syria and Iraq allegedly targeting the Islamic State (ISIS) brigades.

The counterterrorism operation was granted a humanitarian R2P mandate: at the outset, the bombing campaign was allegedly directed against the Islamic State mercenaries (ISIS) with a view to protecting the Yazidis of Northern Iraq.

Obama: A Pack of Lies

According to Obama, military action was needed to protect innocent civilians and prevent ISIS’ advance on Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region.

In his Nationwide address on August 7, 2014, Obama also intimated the need to send in US ground troops:

Good evening. Today I authorized two operations in Iraq — targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. Let me explain the actions we’re taking and why…. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide. That’s what we’re doing on that mountain.

I’ve, therefore, authorized targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there. …

….

Earlier this week, one Iraqi in the area cried to the world, “There is no one coming to help.” Well today, America is coming to help. We’re also consulting with other countries — and the United Nations — who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis.

US Sponsored Genocide.

The humanitarian pretext is bogus, the air strikes are illegal, extensive war crimes have been committed, Obama is not protecting civilians. The civilian deaths resulting from the air strikes are deliberate. And Obama says America is “responsibly preventing a potential act of genocide.

Washington is Providing Support to Al Qaeda entities which are Fighting the Syrian Government

The unspoken objective of the US-led coalition is to PROTECT the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL Daesh) and other Al Qaeda affiliated groups which in large part are responsible for the destruction and killings of civilians. In this regard, DoD documents (excerpt below) confirm unequivocally the US mandate to support rather than fight Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists.

From listening to Trumps speeches, it sounds like he wants to do the same warmongering as Obama and Hillary. Tarpley is merely trying to point how mentally unstable Trump is with daddy issues. He's already walking around with his hands out like he is the emperor.

If you think he is not in bed with wall street, then take a look at his alleged bank account and how he got it. He's already begging for donations which is a backhanded way of saying big boys come on in. I've got these suckkas duped.